How many civs are needed, for the civ switching, to work well, for the general public?

[Leyrann]

But can they awkwardly make out with each other?

With mods, probably.

...someone's gonna mod that, aren't they?

 

[Zaarin]

But can they awkwardly make out with each other?

With the face-to-face diplomacy, who knows?

 

[chaosprophet]

With the face-to-face diplomacy, who knows?

Wow, you just figured out the real reason they made the leaders to face each other like that this time....

 

[stealth_nsk]

Let's add some really rough rate comparison with Civ6. On release it had 18 civs without preorder bonus, Civ7 seem to have 30. That's a bit less than twice.
Civ6 had 2 expansion packs with 8 civilization each, so we could roughly expect if Civ7 had full expansion pack, it would likely have 12-14 civilizations each, let's count at the bottom, 12. So 2 expansions makes it 24.
We also know about 8 civs in preorder DLC packs and we're pretty sure more will come. Let's say we'll have just 1 DLC pack afterwards.

With those calculations we'll have 62 civilizations by the end of Civ7 development cycle and that's quite pessimistic estimation. Sure, it's possible they'll not make 2 expansion packs this time, but I doubt it. One expansion pack for information era is something really expected and one generic expansion improving game mechanics is pretty sure to come at some point.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But it's even worse than that for the Civ6 P-51 -- not only is it a unit that doesn't arrive until the end of the game, but it's completely useless when it does arrive, since the AI doesn't use air units.

I was intentionally leaving out any mention of the egregious incapacity of the Civ VI AI, in the Optimistic Hope that it will not be a factor in Civ VII . . .

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Let's add some really rough rate comparison with Civ6. On release it had 18 civs without preorder bonus, Civ7 seem to have 30. That's a bit less than twice.
Civ6 had 2 expansion packs with 8 civilization each, so we could roughly expect if Civ7 had full expansion pack, it would likely have 12-14 civilizations each, let's count at the bottom, 12. So 2 expansions makes it 24.
We also know about 8 civs in preorder DLC packs and we're pretty sure more will come. Let's say we'll have just 1 DLC pack afterwards.

With those calculations we'll have 62 civilizations by the end of Civ7 development cycle and that's quite pessimistic estimation. Sure, it's possible they'll not make 2 expansion packs this time, but I doubt it. One expansion pack for information era is something really expected and one generic expansion improving game mechanics is pretty sure to come at some point.

- And this is without factoring in the 'extra' work required by animated/voice acted Leaders, which have now been separated from the Civs. Given that the two preorder DLC packs are reach 2 Leaders and 4 Civs, if they maintain that ratio they could easily bump regular DLCs to up to 16 Civs with 8 Leaders (assuming they aren't going to add brand new Building/Architectural packs for a new set of Civs, which puts the Feature Load back on the Civs).

As said, 62 estimated Civs after 2 complete (annual?) DLCs is probably the lowest estimate.

20+ Civs per Age will almost start to fill my needs for numbers of Civs to Progress to . . .

 

[stealth_nsk]

- And this is without factoring in the 'extra' work required by animated/voice acted Leaders, which have now been separated from the Civs. Given that the two preorder DLC packs are reach 2 Leaders and 4 Civs, if they maintain that ratio they could easily bump regular DLCs to up to 16 Civs with 8 Leaders (assuming they aren't going to add brand new Building/Architectural packs for a new set of Civs, which puts the Feature Load back on the Civs).

As said, 62 estimated Civs after 2 complete (annual?) DLCs is probably the lowest estimate.

20+ Civs per Age will almost start to fill my needs for numbers of Civs to Progress to . . .

It's possible those will be civs for 4 ages (so, 16-18 civs per age) if one of the expansions will actually cover the 4th age. The only problem with this concept is to imagine what those civilizations of 4th age should be.

 

[reddishrecue]

who knows?

Haha that's what Agamenon said in the movie Troy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's possible those will be civs for 4 ages (so, 16-18 civs per age) if one of the expansions will actually cover the 4th age. The only problem with this concept is to imagine what those civilizations of 4th age should be.

I'm afraid the only way I can see a 4th Age added is if it is tacked on to either end: a Pre-Antiquity or Contemporary Age. Depending on where the regular game ends, I think the Contemporary is more likely, but only if they go with 1/2 year turns so that it does not stretch too far into the Near Future.

All speculation at this point, since we are missing any solid information on the fates the game extends to: we have 4000 BCE and 400 CE as a Start Date for Exploration, and no dates at all for the Modern Age or any hint that they are interesting on a largely Pre-City/Pre-Leader Pre-Antiquity Age.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm afraid the only way I can see a 4th Age added is if it is tacked on to either end: a Pre-Antiquity or Contemporary Age. Depending on where the regular game ends, I think the Contemporary is more likely, but only if they go with 1/2 year turns so that it does not stretch too far into the Near Future.

All speculation at this point, since we are missing any solid information on the fates the game extends to: we have 4000 BCE and 400 CE as a Start Date for Exploration, and no dates at all for the Modern Age or any hint that they are interesting on a largely Pre-City/Pre-Leader Pre-Antiquity Age.

Yeah, I was thinking about Contemporary Age (or Information Era, whatever) too. But I think it will be a challenge to find civs for it as most powerful current civs are likely to be present in Modern. Sure, it's possible we'll have Russian Empire in Modern and Russian Federation in Contemporary, but for USA it would be hard to name a successor.

 

[chaosprophet]

I'm afraid the only way I can see a 4th Age added is if it is tacked on to either end: a Pre-Antiquity or Contemporary Age. Depending on where the regular game ends, I think the Contemporary is more likely, but only if they go with 1/2 year turns so that it does not stretch too far into the Near Future.

All speculation at this point, since we are missing any solid information on the fates the game extends to: we have 4000 BCE and 400 CE as a Start Date for Exploration, and no dates at all for the Modern Age or any hint that they are interesting on a largely Pre-City/Pre-Leader Pre-Antiquity Age.

One thing I think is feasible, and would be small that wouldn't even need a expansion to be added, is a short Pre-Antiquity age, lets say 10~15 turns on standard, just to explore a bit and better decide a place to make your first city as the settler only appearing on turn 1 of antiquity. Could also be interesting if you didn't pick any civ for that small age, and then could pick an antiquity age that best served your starting point.

 

[Gori the Grey]

20+ Civs per Age will almost start to fill my needs for numbers of Civs to Progress to . . .

This is one of the reasons why I think they are going to need a larger total number than in previous civs (a larger total number of civlets than they had civs in other iterations). If switching to a new civ 1/3 and 2/3 through the game is the new central feature of this iteration, then they need to make that fun, and having limited options is not fun.

That takes me back to thinking 30 per era.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is one of the reasons why I think they are going to need a larger total number than in previous civs (a larger total number of civlets than they had civs in other iterations). If switching to a new civ 1/3 and 2/3 through the game is the new central feature of this iteration, then they need to make that fun, and having limited options is not fun.

That takes me back to thinking 30 per era.

Having too many options also deteriorate the value of choice. 30 per age could be a bit too much.

For example, unique military units replace all units of that type in the era, meaning there are about 6 military units to replace in antiquity and exploration. That's 5 civilization with more or less similar UU on average (I expect more than that for Infantry replacements and a bit less for naval ones)

 

[AriochIV]

I was intentionally leaving out any mention of the egregious incapacity of the Civ VI AI, in the Optimistic Hope that it will not be a factor in Civ VII . . .

OH NO NOT THE BAD JUJU!

(turns around three times and tosses a black cat over my shoulder)

We shall not speak of this again.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Having too many options also deteriorate the value of choice. 30 per age could be a bit too much.

But remember, in any particular game, you will only be able to choose some pretty limited number at each shift-over, the ones that represent a historical progression from your first civ and a few others that you qualify for. So for those to come from a larger pool will keep long-term engagement with the game.

 

[Zaarin]

But remember, in any particular game, you will only be able to choose some pretty limited number at each shift-over, the ones that represent a historical progression from your first civ and a few others that you qualify for. So for those to come from a larger pool will keep long-term engagement with the game.

Also, because you bring over elements of every civ along the way, every combination of civs is going to be at least a little unique. (E.g., if you go Rome > Spain, your civics and unique infrastructure are going to feel a little different than if you go Phoenicia > Spain, as a hypothetical example.)

 

[vorlon_mi]

That vast number of combinations is a minor concern for me. With 10 civs per era, plus leader choices, we will have SOOO many possibilities through all 3 eras. At least of those paths is going to be overpowered, maybe more. No way to test them all, even with automation. I predict the first balance patches will be to address a combo that is counter-intuitive, non-historical, but is hugely successful.

On the other hand, the bizarre combo of Qin-Unifier + Zombies was probably something they anticipated. It just took some dedicated, enthusiastic, streamer to make it real.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That vast number of combinations is a minor concern for me. With 10 civs per era, plus leader choices, we will have SOOO many possibilities through all 3 eras. At least of those paths is going to be overpowered, maybe more. No way to test them all, even with automation. I predict the first balance patches will be to address a combo that is counter-intuitive, non-historical, but is hugely successful.

I think the last claim here is certainly going to prove to be true.

Let's say there are 10. One won't, in any particular game, necessarily get the opportunity to take one's choice of 10, since certain conditions have to be met for a civ to be available (and is there also the chance that another player could claim it before you could?)

So, discussion here will be anecdotal, and strats people develop will not necessarily be implementable. "Oh man, if you start with Babylon and move on to Spain and then do Germany, it makes for sick science numbers." But now you can't just go test that yourself, b/c maybe you don't get Spain as a choice in the second era. Even the original discoverer of that strategy won't necessarily be able to implement it in every subsequent game.

There's another point I've started to think about. So let's say you have reason for thinking Mongolia would be a great second era civ for your overall strategy. You only have two horses. There's a city you could attack to get a third horse. Attacking it makes sense on no other terms. You do so only because it means you can be Mongolia in the next phase. The ahistoricism of that is going to feel pretty min-maxing.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the last claim here is certainly going to prove to be true.

Let's say there are 10. One won't, in any particular game, necessarily get the opportunity to take one's choice of 10, since certain conditions have to be met for a civ to be available (and is there also the chance that another player could claim it before you could?)

So, discussion here will be anecdotal, and strats people develop will not necessarily be implementable. "Oh man, if you start with Babylon and move on to Spain and then do Germany, it makes for sick science numbers." But now you can't just go test that yourself, b/c maybe you don't get Spain as a choice in the second era. Even the original discoverer of that strategy won't necessarily be able to implement it in every subsequent game.

There's another point I've started to think about. So let's say you have reason for thinking Mongolia would be a great second era civ for your overall strategy. You only have two horses. There's a city you could attack to get a third horse. Attacking it makes sense on no other terms. You do so only because it means you can be Mongolia in the next phase. The ahistoricism of that is going to feel pretty min-maxing.

Actually that makes it less ahistorical. Horses are becoming a source of power in your civ, certain factions/leaders/generals push your civ into war to increase theit personal control on horses. When the crisis finally comes, these are the people whose ideas filter down to the rest of society.

Its no more ahistorical than “deciding” to research monarchy.

 

[vorlon_mi]

ISo, discussion here will be anecdotal, and strats people develop will not necessarily be implementable. "Oh man, if you start with Babylon and move on to Spain and then do Germany, it makes for sick science numbers." But now you can't just go test that yourself, b/c maybe you don't get Spain as a choice in the second era. Even the original discoverer of that strategy won't necessarily be able to implement it in every subsequent game.

There's another point I've started to think about. So let's say you have reason for thinking Mongolia would be a great second era civ for your overall strategy. You only have two horses. There's a city you could attack to get a third horse. Attacking it makes sense on no other terms. You do so only because it means you can be Mongolia in the next phase. The ahistoricism of that is going to feel pretty min-maxing.

Agree. My second prediction is that one of the first mods will be to allow much greater freedom in choosing the civ that you will use for the next era, to enable finding the OP combination. Yes, it's min-maxing, but so is yield porn in Civ6, stacks of suicide catapults in Civ4, and using the palace as a wonder pre-build in Civ3.